Synopse Open Source

I've just updated the documentation part about the SOLID Design Principles.
The former blog article (almost 4 years old!) sounds like a bit deprecated now...
This is why I would extract here an updated version of this material.

Ensure you checked the corresponding part of the mORMot documentation, which is the updated reference, and probably the easiest to read - including links to all the other documentation.

The acronym SOLID is derived from the following OOP principles (quoted from the corresponding Wikipedia article):

• Single responsibility principle: the notion that an object should have only a single responsibility;
• Open/closed principle: the notion that "software entities ... should be open for extension, but closed for modification";
• Liskov substitution principle: the notion that "objects in a program should be replaceable with instances of their subtypes without altering the correctness of that program” - also named as "design by contract";
• Interface segregation principle: the notion that "many client specific interfaces are better than one general purpose interface.";
• Dependency inversion principle: the notion that one should "Depend upon Abstractions. Do not depend upon concretions.". Dependency injection is one method of following this principle, which is also called Inversion Of Control (aka IoC).

If you have some programming skills, those principles are general statements you may already found out by yourself. If you start doing serious object-oriented coding, those principles are best-practice guidelines you would gain following.

They certainly help to fight the three main code weaknesses:

• Rigidity: Hard to change something because every change affects too many other parts of the system;
• Fragility: When you make a change, unexpected parts of the system break;
• Immobility: Hard to reuse in another application because it cannot be disentangled from the current application.

As stated during TSQLRecord fields definition, the ORM is able to maintain a revision number for any TSQLRecord table, so that it the table may be easily synchronized remotely by another TSQLRestServer instance.
If you define a TRecordVersion published property, the ORM core will fill this field just before any write with a monotonically increasing revision number, and will take care of any deletion, so that those modifications may be replayed later on any other database.

This synchronization will work as a strict master/slave replication scheme, as a one-way on demand refresh of a replicated table.
Each write operation on the master database on a given table may be easily reflected on one or several slave databases, with almost no speed nor storage size penalty.

In a comment of a Google+ announcement about new C# features, Stephan did react about my naive enthusiasm about SmartPascal.

Apart from the fact that he did miss the numerous ways of creating Windows executable in this dialect (I quoted at least 5 diverse ways), he was chocked by the fact that the SmartPascal syntax, in its actual idiom, does not support generics.

But are generics mandatory?
I'm not speaking about any drug identified by its chemical name rather than its brand name (Wikipedia).
I would neither comment on the current Delphi implementation of generics (which may appear not so polished, nor very widely used, even in the Delphi RTL/FMX, but for TList<T> TDictionary<>).
Just share some thoughts about what is, to my opinion - which may be wrong and biased! - the most important part of today's programming.

You certainly noticed that WebSocket is the current trendy flavor for any modern web framework.
But does it scale? Would it replace HTTP/REST?
There is a feature request ticket about them for mORMot, so here are some thoughts - matter of debate, of course!
I started all this by answering a StackOverflow question, in which the actual answers were not accurate enough, to my opinion.

From my point of view, Websocket - as a protocol - is some kind of monster.

You start a HTTP stateless connection, then switch to WebSocket mode which releases the TCP/IP dual-direction layer, then you may switch later on back to HTTP...
It reminds me some kind of monstrosity, just like encapsulating everything over HTTP, using XML messages... Just to bypass the security barriers... Just breaking the OSI layered model...
It reminds me the fact that our mobile phone data providers do not use broadcasting for streaming audio and video, but regular Internet HTTP servers, so the mobile phone data bandwidth is just wasted when a sport event occurs: every single smart phone has its own connection to the server, and the same video is transmitted in parallel, saturating the single communication channel... Smart phones are not so smart, aren't they?

WebSocket sounds like a clever way to circumvent a limitation...
But why not use a dedicated layer?
I hope HTTP 2.0 would allow pushing information from the server, as part of the standard... and in one decade, we probably will see WebSocket as a deprecated technology.
You have been warned. Do not invest too much in WebSockets..

OK. Back to our existential questions...
First of all, does the WebSocket protocol scale?
Today, any modern single server is able to server millions of clients at once.
Its HTTP server software has just to be is Event-Driven (IOCP) oriented (we are not in the old Apache's one connection = one thread/process equation any more).
Even the HTTP server built in Windows (http.sys - which is used in mORMot) is IOCP oriented and very efficient (running in kernel mode).
From this point of view, there won't be a lot of difference at scaling between WebSocket and a regular HTTP connection. One TCP/IP connection uses a little resource (much less than a thread), and modern OS are optimized for handling a lot of concurrent connections: WebSocket and HTTP are just OSI 7 application layer protocols, inheriting from this TCP/IP specifications.

But, from experiment, I've seen two main problems with WebSocket:

1. It does not support CDN;
2. It has potential security issues.

Cape Cod Gunny just wrote a blog article about how to replace a global variable by a static class instance.

But I had to react!
Using such static declaration is just another way of creating a global variable.
This is just a global variable in disguise.
In fact, the generated asm will be just like a global variable!

It encapsulates the global declaration within a class name space, but it is still IMHO a very wrong design.
I've seen so many C# or Java code which used such a pattern (there is no global variable in those languages), and it has the same disadvantages as global variables.
Just like the singleton syndrome, 
Code is just not re-entrant nor thread-safe.
Nightmare to debug and let evolve.

Since there was recently some articles about performance comparison between several versions of the Delphi compiler, we had to react, and gives our personal point of view.

IMHO there won't be any definitive statement about this.
I'm always doubtful about any conclusion which may be achieved with such kind of benchmarks.
Asking "which compiler is better?" is IMHO a wrong question.
As if there was some "compiler magic": the new compiler will be just like a new laundry detergent - it will be cleaner and whiter...

Performance is not about marketing.
Performance is an iterative process, always a matter of circumstances, and implementation.

Circumstances of the benchmark itself.
Each benchmark will report only information about the process it measured.
What you compare is a limited set of features, running most of the time an idealized and simplified pattern, which shares nothing with real-world process.

Implementation is what gives performance.
Changing a compiler will only gives you some percents of time change.
Identifying the true bottlenecks of an application via a profiler, then changing the implementation of the identified bottlenecks may give order of magnitudes of speed improvement.
For instance, multi-threading abilities can be achieved by following some simple rules.

With our huge set of regression tests, we have at hand more than 16,500,000 individual checks, covering low-level features (like numerical and text marshaling), or high-level process (like concurrent client/server and database multi-threaded process).

You will find here some benchmarks run with Delphi 6, 7, 2007, XE4 and XE6 under Win32, and XE4 and XE6 under Win64.
In short, all compilers performs more or less at the same speed.
Win64 is a little slower than Win32, and the fastest appears to be Delphi 7, using our enhanced and optimized RTL.

Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) codes are widely used for integrity checking of data in fields such as storage and networking.
There is an ever-increasing need for very high-speed CRC computations on processors for end-to-end integrity checks.

We just introduced to mORMot's core unit (SynCommons.pas) a fast and efficient crc32c() function.

It will use either:

• Optimized x86 asm code, with unrolled loops;
• SSE 4.2 hardware crc32 instruction, if available.

Resulting speed is very good.
This is for sure the fastest CRC function available in Delphi.
Note that there is a version dedicated to each Win32 and Win64 platform - both performs at the same speed!

In fact, most popular file formats and protocols (Ethernet, MPEG-2, ZIP, RAR, 7-Zip, GZip, and PNG) use the polynomial $04C11DB7, while Intel's hardware implementation is based on another polynomial, $1EDC6F41 (used in iSCSI and Btrfs).
So you would not use this new crc32c() function to replace the zlib's crc32() function, but as a convenient very fast hashing function at application level.
For instance, our TDynArray wrapper will use it for fast items hashing.

From the beginning, server-side storage tables which were not store in a SQLite3 database were implemented via some classes inheriting from TSQLRestServerStatic.
This TSQLRestServerStatic was inheriting from TSQLRestServer, which did not make much sense (but was made for laziness years ago, if I remember well).

Now, a new TSQLRestStorage class, directly inheriting from TSQLRest, is used for per-table storage.
This huge code refactoring results in a much cleaner design, and will enhance code maintainability.
Documentation has been updated to reflect the changes.

Note that this won't change anything when using the framework (but the new class names): it is an implementation detail, which had to be fixed.

Here are some benchmark charts about MongoDB integration in mORMot's ORM.

MongoDB appears as a serious competitor to SQL databases, with the potential benefit of horizontal scaling and installation/administration ease - performance is very high, and its document-based storage fits perfectly with mORMot's advanced ORM features like Shared nothing architecture (or sharding).